Obama’s Internet police: Moves to regulate online commerce

The Washington Times ^ | March 6, 2012 | The Editors

[2ndDivisionVet]

It’s the same old story. Ever since the Internet became popular, politicians have looked for a way to sink their claws into it. They hate the idea that the public might communicate and engage in commerce largely free from governmental red tape. So President Obama last month announced a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights to give Uncle Sam more of a role in shaping the online experience.

The idea is to exploit the recent, high-profile privacy controversies surrounding Google and Facebook. Some complain that these online giants are collecting too much personal information. Usually, public outrage about intrusive practices is sufficient to encourage restraint, and consumers have the ultimate power of saying no to services that don’t meet their expectations.

That’s not enough for the administration. Forget the “hands-off” policy of the past. Mr. Obama wants to decide what Google and Facebook can and cannot do. He’s deputizing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to serve as Internet cop, enforcing what once was a voluntary code of good conduct.

This system will be replaced by new mandates cooked up by a “multistakeholder process” consisting of “international partners, the FTC, Federal civil and criminal law enforcement representatives, and State Attorneys General.” In other words, government busybodies will tell the private sector how its businesses should be run.

The biggest problem for the administration is that when it comes to privacy, the emperor has no clothes....

[4rcane]

its outragous that google/facebook collect private information. How dare they compete against the government!!

[1010RD]

The “Internet privacy problem” is being solved by the marketplace. We don’t need government to “fix” it.

[Cato in PA]

The only thing the government should do is make sure that people have easy access to the information necessary to make an informed choice. If Joe complains that Facebook tracks him after he voluntarily agreed to sign up, he has only himself to blame.

Liberals don’t seem to understand that people need to be allowed to fail. It almost seems to be an outgrowth from the moral relativism that so many of them believe in: that every choice is equal since Uncle Sam will help you out even if you make the “wrong” decision.

I don’t think a voluntary code of conduct is a bad idea, incidentally, but I’d much rather take it from an organization like the EFF that actually respects privacy and won’t resort to government intrusion to enforce compliance.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Look for this term “multistakeholders” to keep popping up more and more if Obama gets a second term.

Corporations accountable to their shareholders? No way, Jose!
They must be accountable to “multistakeholders” (unions, environmentalists, local communities, community organizers, etc. etc. etc.)

[theBuckwheat]

It is very telling of the true nature of government that the government of what is commonly called the “land of the free” is hell-bent on destroying liberty wherever it can sink its claws of control, compliance and taxation.

In InternetWorld, humanity can conduct their affairs as they please, and even in most ways, just decline to allow government to intrude. If the US government gets too intrusive, businesses can domesticate elsewhere and locate their servers in jurisdictions that are not hostile to liberty.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” We can peacefully walk away from any business that abuses its customers. Government, on the other hand, finds it easy to use violence to keep people under its control.

Of course, all this liberty this drives advocates of big and Bigger government crazy.

[momincombatboots]

By regulate, they mean tax! Make no mistake, this is all about money.